UcLL 



ENGLISH NEUTRALITY. 



IS THE ALABAMA A BRITISH PIRATE ? 



PHILADELPHIA: 

HENRY B. ASHMEAD, BOOK ASD JOB PRINTER, 
Nos. 1102 AND 1104 Sansom Street., 
1863. . 



y 



ENGLISH NEUTRALITY. 



18 THE ALABAMA A BRITISH PIRATE? 



C^T««>\«.v\o<^ ^:^ UqV* 



PHILADELPHIA: 

HENRY B. A8HMEAD, BOOK AND JOB PRINTEH, 

1102 AND 1104 Sansoji Steeet. 

1863. 



TO ABIEL A. LOW, ESQ. 



When Great Britain was last iu the position of requiring from other 
nations the observance of a strict neutrality, the unjust aspersion was 
cast upon your house of fitting out a vessel in the interest of her enemy. 
The searching investigation— demanded by you— which followed, led to 
your complete vindication, and an indignant declaration by the merchants 
of New York of their abhorrence of the crime against honest neutrality, 
which had been so falsely laid upon American merchants. 

Now, when England is called upon to perform the duties of neutrality, 
you become, by the loss of your ship, the Jacob Bell, a principal sufferer 
from her flagrant disregard of international justice and honor. 

These special circumstances alone, show an evident propriety in inscrib- 
ing to you this reading of law and history upon the cases of those public 
marauders, the Alabama and Florida. But other considerations unite to 
prove the fitness of such a dedication : and among them may be enumerated 
that eminent enterprise which has made your name the synonym of honor 
in the four quarters of the globe ; your unflinching and self-sacrificing 
patriotism in these days of trial ; your public and intelligent advocacy of 
right principles and right practice towaVd other nations under the irri- 
tating and embarrassing circumstances of the time ; and, above all, that 
universal judgment of the community in which joxx live, by which is con- 
ceded to you a union of public and private virtues fully entitling you to 
the high place you hold in men's esteem. 

The public voice will cordially endorse the truth of these observations, 
and admit their force as a justification for joining your name to this effort 
to direct popular attention to those serious complications, now arising 
from the course of conduct towards this nation which Great Britain has 
chosen to adopt. 

With great respect, I am 

Your obedient servant, 

GROSVENOR P. LOWREY. 

New York, March 14, 1863. ' 



ENGLISH NEUTRALITY. 



BuRiNG the past twelve months, numerous and notorious 
acts, in breach of those obligations of neutrality which are due 
from a friendly nation to another engaged in war, have been 
perpetrated against us by the British 'government and certain 
of the British people. The action of our government touching 
these grave matters, has been forbearing, although firm, and 
in all respects admirable, in contrast with the action and lan- 
guage of England herself in former times, under circumstances 
differing from the present only in the respect that, from the 
character of this war, our claim to the observance of strict 
neutrality is stronger than hers has, or could ever have been. 
The public journals of England announce that, far from any 
cessation of this evil industry, the arming and equipping of 
Vessels to cruise against our commerce is going on with in- 
creased energy, and with such lack of disguise, that we are 
forced to consider the councils of that country as wanting in 
capacity or good faith. The sequel will enable us *to decide 
upon which horn of the dilemma to locate the probability. 

Under such a state of facts, it is time that the people at 
large were led to consider, in the light of history and law, the 
exact character and limitation of their rights in such cases. 

That code which, under the general name of the Laws of 
Nations, is admitted to control the conduct of states toward 
each other, -ought to be, and, as defined by the publicists, is 
founded upon the most elevated considerations of morals, jus- 
tice, equity, and convenience. In this dignified system, under 
which nations act in view of all the world, it is the substance, 
rather than the form of things, which is regarded; and those 
small technicalities which, in municipal systems, often impede 
the course of justice, are rightly disregarded. 

The relation of neutrality which arises under the law of na- 
tions is declared by Phillimore, the latest and best English writer 



. b ENGLISH NEUTRALITY. 

upon international law, to consist in two principal circum- 
stances: 

1. Entire abstinence from any participation in the war. 

2. Impartiality of conduct towards both belligerents. 
These obligations are frequently strengthened, and made 

obligatory upon all persons resident within the territorial- juris- 
diction of a nation, hj, first, treaties; and, second, enactments 
of the local legislature, or whatever, in each case, corresponds 
to such a body. As between this nation and Great Britain, 
the right and duty of neutrality rest upon international law 
and the statutes of the respective countries. We have, on our 
part, endeavored to provide for the prevention or punishment 
of unneutral acts, by either citizens or strangers, while among 
• us, through acts of Congress of 1794, 1818, and 1838. Great 
Britain has undertaken to accomplish the same end by act of 
Parliament, 59 Geo. III., c. 69.'^- A review of the action and 

* The following are extracts from tlie act of 59 Geo. III., commonly called the 
Foreign Enlistment Act: 

" Skc. 7. And be it further enacted, that if any person within any part of the United 
Kingdom, or in any part of his majesty's dominions beyond the seas, shall, without the 
leave and license of his majesty, fur that purpose first had and obtained, as aforesaid, 
equip, furnish, fit out, or arm, or procure to be equipped, furnished, fitted out, or armed, 
orshall knowingly aid, assist, or be concerned in the equipping, furnishing, fitting out, 
orarmingof any shipor vessel, with intent, or in order.that such ship or vessel shall be 
employed in the service of any foreign prince, state, or potentate, or of any foreign 
colony, province, orpart of any province, orpeople, orof any person orpersons, exercis- 
ing or assuming to exercise any powers of government in or over any foreign state, 
colony, province, or jjart of any province, or people, as a transport, or storeship, or 
with intent to cruise or commit hostilities against any prince, state, (jr potentate, or 
against the subjects or citizens of any prince, state, or potentate, or against the per- 
sons exercising or assuming to exercise the powers of government in any colony, 
jjrovincc, or part of any province, or country, or against the inhabitants of any foreign 
colony, province, or part of any province or country with whom his majesty shall 
not then be at wsir ; or shall within the United Kingdom or any of his majesty's 
dominions, or. in any settlement, colony, territory, island, or place belonging or sub- 
ject to his majesty, issue or deliver any commission for any shiij or vessel, to the in- 
tent that such ship or vessel shall be employed as aforesaid; every such person so 
oflfending shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and shall, upon conviction there- 
of, upon any information or indictment, bo punished by fine and imprisonment, or 
either of them, at the discretion of the court in which such offender shall be convict- 
ed ; and every such ship or vessel, with the tackle, apparel, and furniture, together 
with all the materials, arms, ammunition, and stores, which may belong to or be ^n 
board of any such ship or vessel, shall be forfeited; and it shall be lawful for any 
oflRcer of his majesty's customs or excise, or any officer of his majesty's navy, who 
is by law empowered to make seizures for any forfeiture incurred under any, of the 
laws of customs or excise, or the laws of trade or navigation, to seize such ships and 
vessels as aforesaid, and in such places and in such manner in which thq officers of 
his majesty's customs or excise and the officers of his majesty's navy are empowered 
respectively to make seizures under the laws of customs and excise, or under the 
laws of trade and navigation; and that every such ship and vessel with the tackle, 
apparel, and furniture, together with all the materials, arms, ammunition, and stores, 
which may belong to or be on board of such ship or vessel, may be prosecuted and con- 
demned in the like manner, and in such courts as ships or vessels may be prosecuted 
an4 condemned for any breach of the laws made for the protection of the revenues, 
customs, and excise, or of the laws of trade and navigation. 

"Sec. 8. And be it further enacted, that if any person in any part of the United 



IS THE ALABAMA A BRITISH PIRATE? 7 

demands of each government, in cases of infraction of neutral 
rights in times past, will be important, for the purpose of as- 
certaining T/hat, precisely, is the law of nations upon this point ; 
but that must be postponed for a statement of some of the facta 
of which we now complain. 

Upon the breaking out of the rebellion, the British govern- 
ment made haste to concede belligerent rights to the insur- 
gents, and to declare its intention to observe strict neutrality. 
The state of English law was such that this proclamation was 
entirely uncalled for, as it could neither increase nor decrease 
legal obligations or penalties ; and its only effect was to guar- 
antee to adventurers, who might wish to enlist with the re- 
bellion, that they should thereby undergo no greater risks 
than the ordinary chances of regular war. The promulgation 
of the first proposition was generally taken to be, and perhaps 
was, intended to -relieve such persons from the character and 
ugly responsibility of pirates and freebooters. It became, in 
fact, an invitation, as it did ^not, on the other hand, enjoin 
vigilance upon officials or threaten punishment to offenders. 
Under this encouragement, the business of ship-building for the 
South commenced, and went on with a rapidity surprising 
to those who had forgotten that men were found in Manches- 
ter and Sheffield to furnish supplies to the Sepoy rebellion even. 
The two principal, cases are those of the war-steamers Oreto 
and Alabama. In February, 1862, it was notorious at Liver- 
pool that the Oreto (now called the Florida), a newly-launched 
war-steamer, Avas intended for the Confederate service; and 
the American Minister, Mr. Adams, wrote to Lord Russell 
(Diplomatic Correspondence for 1862), notifying him of the 

Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, or in any part of his majesty's dominions 
beyond the seas, without the leave and license of his majesty for tha't purpose first 
had and obtained, as aforesaid, shall, by adding to the number of the guns of such 
vessel, or by changing those on board for other guns, or by the addition of any 
equipment for war, increase or augment, or procure to bo increased or augmented, 
n- shall be knowingly concerned in increasing or augmenting the warlike force of 
mj ship or vessel of war, or cruiser, or other armed vessel, which, at the time of 
h«r arrival in any part of the United Kingdom, or any of his majesty's dominions 
WIS a ship-of-war, cruiser, or armed vessel in the service of any foreign prince, 
state, or potentate, or of any person or persons exercising or assuming to exercise any 
povers of government in, or over any colony, province, or part of any province, or 
people, belonging to the subjects of any such prince, state, or potentate, or to the 
inhabitants of any colony, province, pr part of any province, or country, under the 
conh'ol of any person or persons so exercising or assuming to exercise the powers of 
government; every such person so offending shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, 
and shall, upon being convicted thereof, upon any information or indictment, be 
punished by fino^,or imprisonment, or either of them, at the discretion of the court 
before which such offender shall be convicted." 



8 ENGLISH NEUTRALITY.. 

character of the vessel ; upon which the customs officer of that 
port was directed to investigate the matter. This zealous offi- 
cial proceeded to make inquiries of the builders, who informed 
him that the vessel was owned by Fawcett, Preston & Co., of 
Liverpool, and that they (the builders) believed she was des- 
tined for Palermo — stating, as the ground of this belief, that 
"they had been requested to name a master to take her to that 
port." No inquiry appears, to have been made of the owners 
or other persons, and the collector reported that the Oreto was, 
without doubt, bound on a legitimate voyage. Upon further 
representation^ by Mr. Adams, an examination was made of 
her, when her crew was found to consist of fifty-two English' 
men and one American, and her cargo of one hundred and 
seventy -three tons of arms, for Palermo and Jamaica. These 
suspicious circumstances, together with the universal public 
rumor as to her real destination, were disregarded, and she was 
permitted to sail. Her first port was Nassau, in New Provi- 
dence, S, British colonial port. At this place her real character 
Avas well known and no longer denied. Upon demand of the 
American consul, some sham proceedings were taken against 
her by the English local authorities, but she was detained only 
long enough for her new commander to reach her, and then 
allowed to continue her piratical voyage. Iler career since 
, that time is fresh in the memory of every man, and need not 
be recapitulated. Her latest exploit is the burning of the ship 
Jacob Bell. Mr. Adams writes (March 7, Dip. Cor, 1862) : 

" The nominal destination of the Oreto for Sicily is the only advantage 
which appears to have been derived from my attenipt to procure the inter- 
ference of the government to stop her departure." 

The only apology for such dereliction was, "a polite expres- 
sion" by Lord Russell " of regret;" but " he did not see how 
her majesty's government could change its position." (Mr. 
Adams to Mr. Seward, April 16, 1862.) 

In the next case, that of the Alabama, this excuse (bad in 
itself), that the American minister did not furnish sufficient 
proof to justify interference by the government, is wholly want- 
ing. On the 23d of June, 1862, Mr. Adams wrote to Lord 
Russell, informing him that the Oreto had gone to Nassau, aad 
that another and more formidable war-steamer was nearly 
ready to follow her. Said he : 



IS THE ALABAMA A BHITISH PIRATE? 9 

*' This vessel has been built and launched from the dockyard of persons, 
ene of whom is now sitting as a member of the House of Commons, and is 
fitting out for the especial and manifest purpose of carrying on hostilities 
at sea. It is about to be commanded by one of the insurgent agents, the 
same who sailed in the Oreto. The parties engaged in the enterprise are 
persons well known at Liverpool to be agents and officers of the insurgents 
in the United States, the nature and extent of whose labors are well ex- 
plained in the copy of an interceded letter, which I received from my 
government, and had the honor to place in your lordship's hands a few 
days ago." (Diplom. Corr. 128.) 

On the 25th, Lord Russell replied, stating that he had, with- 
out loss of time, referred the matter to the proper department. 
On the- 1st of July, the persons to whom the matter was thus 
referred reported that the fitting out of this vessel had not es- 
caped the attention of her majesty's revenue officers, and that, 
pursuant to directions, they had made inquiries of the builders, 
who did not deny -that she is built for a foreign government, 
hut " do not appear disposed to answer' any questions as to her 
destination when she leaves Liverpool." The government are 
not shown to have taken any offence at this trifling, but, on the 
contrary, declined to interfere until fqrther proof should be 
presented. This demand was not difficult to be complied with, 
for within a few days affidavits were produced to the Board of 
Customs, upon which the opinion of Mr. Collier, an eminent 
English lawyer, was first taken, who replied : 

" It appears difficult to make out a stronger case of infringement of the 
Foreign Enlistment Act, which, if not enforced on this occasion, is little 
better than a dead letter." (Diplom. Corr. 152.) 

A further delay was caused by the rejection of these affida- 
vits on account of some technical defect in form ; but at last 
every captious objection being exhausted, copies of the per- 
fected affidavits were, on the 23d of July, sent to Lord Rus- 
sell ; but no action being taken, the Alabama went to sea at 
her leisure on the 29th. The flagrant delinquency of the 
government is admitted by Lord Russell on the 31st, in a con- 
versation with Mr. Adams, at which time he stated that the 
delay of the government " liad been caused hy the development 
of a sudden malady in Sir John D. Harding^ the queen s ad- 
vocate, totally incapacitating him for the transaction of business. 
This made it necessary to call in other parties, whose opinion 
had at last been for a detention of the gunboat^ but before the 



10 ENGLISH NEUTRALITY. 

• 

order got doum to Uver-pool she ivas gone.'' It is not pretended 
that any expedition was used by the parties Avho came to the 
rescue of the government ■^dien Sir John D. Harding's " ma- 
lady " assumed international importance, or that any attempt 
was made to delay the gunboat temporarily, until a decision 
could be arrived at ; or that the telegraph or any extra-expedi- 
tious means of communication with Liverpool was made use of 
when this decision was "at last" obtained."? 

It should be stated, in justice to Earl Russell, however, that 
he declared his intention to send to Nassau to have the vessel 
intercepted ; but in that connection let it also be rem^iibered 
that lie did 7iot send ; or at least- that he did not send to the 
British squadron to seize her elsewhere in that neighborhood, 
and that the Alabama has avoided that point with as much 
shrewdness as if her captain were possessed in advance of the in- 
tention of the British cabinet ; that, although she has been 
cruising in British West Indian waters for months, and has 
been for six days of the latter portion of the time lying in the 
British port of Kingston,f to be refitted, no attempt has been 
made to seize or detain her, and that no prosecutions have been 

* It may be remarked in passing, as a fair illustration of the fact, that a chnnge 
in Lord Russell's stand-point of observation sometimes affects achauge in his views 
of a subject : that while Great Britain was thus viuluting every legal, moral, and 
honorable obligation to us, she was insisting with pertinacity and almost imperious- 
ness agaijist those wholesome restrictions on trade between New York and Nassau, 
which the collector of this port found it necessary to adopt in order to prevent the 
sending of supplies to the rebels (Dip. Cor., 145, 304), and that the inadvertent act 
of a prize-master, the ludicrous character of which the following note will explain, 
■was magnified into an insult to the English nation, fit to become a subject for diplo- 
matic correspondence (Dip. Cor. 244). 

" New York, Jan. 3, 1862. 

" Sir: — I received your order to-day, stating for me to make a written statement 
" and explain the reason for hoisting the English flag under the American ; Commo- 
" dore, not being acquainted with the custom of bringing in prizes, I was under the 
"impression that I was right. My intention was to do right, but it was not done 
" for any bad purpose or intention to insult the English flag in any way whatever. 
" I was wrong for so doing, and truly hope the department will forgive me. 

"JOHN BAKER, 
• " Commodore Paulding." " Actiiuj Muster, U. S. N. 

It appears by a letter from Commodore Wilkes to the Secretary of the Navy ^Dip. 
Cor., p. 229), that the British gun-boat Bull Dog knowingly gave passage to rebel 
naval oflicers, on their way to England to take charge of the Alabama and other 
vessels of her character. 

f Since the first edition was printed, news has arrived that the Florida has been 
received in Barbados, and her commander entertained at dinner by the English 
Governor of the place. The whereabouts and doings of the Alabama are reported 
in tlie lioyal Gazette of Georgetown, British -Guiana, of February 26, as follows: 

" It is rumored that his Excellency has issued instructions to the pilot department 
to the effect that, in the event of the Alabama calling here shortly on the plea of 
requiriuj^' supplies, the pilots are to inform Captain Semmes that as his vessel has 
rer.eiitly received sxijtj^lies at Jamaica, none can be obtained here within the tiir.e 
allowed by the home regulations." 



IS THE ALABA'MA A BRITISH PIRATE? 11 

instituted against any of the many parties in England who in- 
fringed the Foreign Enlistment Act and the law of nations, by 
conniving at her escape and perfecting her armament afterwards 
in Terceira.* 

* As these sheets are going to press, I have received, through the courtesy of Mr. 
Grant, librarian of the, Mercantile Library, a pamphlet just published in London, en- 
titled, " The Alabama," from which the following extract is made : 

" The ' 290,' as she was then called, sailed, as we have seen, from Liverpool on the 
29th of July, without register or clearance, under the command of Butcher, an En- 
glish subject, who had been referred to in the deposition of Passmore. She picked 
up an additional fifty men off Point Lynass, and proceeded to Terceira in the Azores, 
where she anchored in the Portuguese waters ; there she was shortly joiued by a 
barque, the ' Agrippina,' which had sailed from the Thames with the greater portion 
of the privateer's guns and stores on board. The barque discharged her cargo into 
the '290,' which was still flying the British ensign, and when the Portuguese au- 
thorities interposed, the person Butcher, it is alleged, represented his vessel to be 
English, aiding the English barque, which he said was sinking. Another vessel 
shortly arrived from. Liverpool, the steamer ' Bahama' (which was at first believed 
to be the U. S. steamer, * Tuscarora,' causing some commotion on board), conveying 
the confederate officer Captain Semmes, with Bullock, and fifty additional men, and 
stores for the privateer. The Portuguese authorities then ordered all three vessels 
off, but they merely went to a secluded part of the coast, and completed the tran- 
shipment of the stores. The ' Bahama' cleared from Liverpool on the twelfth of 
August, having on board nineteen cases containing guns, gun-carriages, shot, ram- 
mers, &c., shipped by a firm of engineers and ironfounders of Liverpool. These 
cases were professedly shipped for Nassau. After the transfer of the cargo had 
been concluded, Semmes took command,' ran up the Confederate flag to the mast- 
head, and christened the new steamer tho ' Alabama.' He read to the crew his 
cemmission from Jefferson Davis, as captain, and then made a speech, in which he 
expfeined the kind of warfare he proposed to wage, and called for volunteers. One 
hundred and ten of those on board consented, and forty refused, returning in the 
' Bahama' to Liverpool. Of those who remained, it is stated, in a recently published 
letter' from a Mr. Underbill, dated St. Thomas, West Indies, and which professes to 
give a narrative taken down from t^e lips of the boatswain of the ' Alabama,' during 
her passage from Liverpool to tho Azores, that the most part belonged to the En- 
glish Naval Reserve, all trained gunners, and that the crew receive from the Con- 
federate government half the value of every American ship and cargo destroyed. 
The 'Bahama' took out gold to pay the crew, and after transferring her cargo 
returned with the barque to England, while the privateer set oat on its mission of 
destruction." 

The general bad faith, or, at the very least, criminal apathy of the British govern- 
ment in this matter, was so greafcas to draw from Mr. Adams this indignant declara- 
tion (Letter to Mr. Seward, Dip. Cor. 219) : " It is very manifest that nc disposi- 
tion esifcts here to apply the powers of the government to the investigation of the 
acts complained of, flagrant as they are, or to the prosecution of ofl'enders." Upon 
the part of Lord Russell, the correspondence is exceedingly ingenious in devising 
reasons for postponing the consideration of, or refusing to grant the demands of the 
American Minister. On the 4th of Sep. (Dip. Cor. 200) Mr. Adams, in writing to 
Lord Russell on the subject of the escape of the Alabama, July 29, was compelled 
to complain thus: "I have not yet received any reply in writing to my several notes 
and representations I have had the honor to submit to her majesty's government 
touching this flagrant case." The answer to this was at last received on the 22d, 
and consisted of excuses, among which Sir John D. Harding's '"malady" does not 
appear. One may benevolently hope that Sir John D. Harding was able to forget 
it as easily as Lord John Russell. Let the reader contrast the churlish temper of 
the following letter, which is a fair specimen of Lord Russell's style, with the earn- 
est, open, and liberal language of this government, as it will be hereinafter shown. 

" Foreign Office, Oct. 16, 1802. 
" Sir :— I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 9th Inst., euclosing 
a copy of an intercepted letter whicli you had received from the United States governlnent, be- 
ing the further evidence with regard to the gun-boat ' 290;' .... and Willi reference toq 
your observations with regard to the infringement of the Foreign Enlistment Ac, I have to re- 
mark, that it is true that the Foreign Enlistment Act, or any other act for the same purpose, 
can be evaded by very subtle contrivances; but her majesty's government cannot ou that a<S 
count go beyond the letter of the existing law. " (Dip. Cor. 223.) 



12 ENGLISH NEUTRJlLITT. 

Having seen by this statement what the British government 
failed to do, let us inquire what -it ought to have done. 
And since this country and England are bound to each other 
in mutual obligations of neutrality, arising from the same 
general law of nations, and from legislative enactments almost 
entirely similar, it is fair to show, jBrst, how we conducted our- 
selves toward her at a time when our present positions were 
reversed. 

America had scarcely taken upon herself the habitudes of 
a nation before she was called to perform her international 
obligations of neutrality. The circumstances involved great 
embarrassment. One belligerent was our friend, benefactor, 
and sister republic, France ; the other was our enemy and 
late tyrant, England. We were weak and but poorly pre- 
pared to resist the importunities of our friend, to whom we 
owed so large a debt of gratitude. We were also entangled 
by treaty stipulations with her, under which she enjoyed 
certain privileges in our waters to the exclusion of England ; 
and this again, together with a strong public sympathy for 
her, caused President Washington and his advisers grgat 
difficulty in securing for England an impartial observance of 
neutrality in the matters not touched by the treaty. 

Yet, notwithstanding all this, President Washington, in the 
inaugural speech of his second term, proceeded to declare a 
strict rule of neutrality, under the law of nations, which has 
been faithfully observed to this day. (Speech to Congress, 
American State Papers. Foreign Relations, vol. 1. p. 21.) 
On the 22d of April, 1793, he issued his proclamation con- 
taining these words : 

" I have given instructions to those officers to whom ifc belongs, to cause 
prosecutions to he instituted against all persons who shall, within the cog- 
nizance of the courts of the "United Slates, A'iolate the laic of nations [we 
had no statute at that time] with respect to the powers at war, or any of 
them." (Ibid., 140.) 

This was followed by written instructions from Alexander 
Hamilton, Secretary of the Treasury, to the collectors of the 

Perhaps Lord Russell means that to decide in time is to go beyond the letter of 
the law; for it is of the failure to do that that Mr. Adams complains. The decision, 
as it was "at last" given, was entirely satisfactory, and had it been made known 
before in.=tcad of after the departure of the " 290," the " letter" of the law, as Lord 
Russell understands it, might have been a little shattered, but the spirit of the law, 
which now lies wickedly violated, would have been preserved. 



IS THE ALABAMA A BRITISH PIRATE? 13 

customs, requiring " the greatest vigilance, care, activity, and 
impartiality," in searching for and discovering any attempt to 
fit out vessels and expeditions, or send men, to the aid of 
either party (ibid. 140) ; and so strict were these requirements 
that Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State, the great champion 
of neutrality, was compelled to denounce them as " setting up 
■a system of espionage destructive to the peace of society." 
(Jeff. Works, vol. 9, 556 ; 3 ib. 556.) While Mr. Jefferson 
declared in Cabinet Council (9 Jeff. W. 154), " It is incon- 
sistent for a nation which has been patiently bearing for ten 
years the grossest insults and injuries from their late enemies, 
to rise at a feather against their friends and benefactors ; and 
at a moment, too, when circumstances have kindled the most 
ardent affections of the two people towards each other;" 
he still wrote to the French representative, M. Tcrnant, de- 
manding the cessation of the fitting out of certain privateers 
in Charleston (3 Jeff. 561) ; and to his successor, Citizen 
Genet (whom we afterwards sent home for endeavoring to make 
use of our harbors for such illegal purposes), " The fitting 
out of armed vessels against nations with whom we are at 
peace" is "instrumental to the annoyance of those nations, 
and thereby tends to compromit their peace," and "it is the 
duty of a neutral nation to prohibit such acts as would injure 
one of the warring parties." (Ibid. 571.) 

One of the first cases demanding action by the government 
was that of the Little Sarah. Upon the suggestion by Mr. 
Hammond, the British representative, that she was being fitted 
as a French privateer, she was seized, and being found to con- 
tain a suspicious armament, was prevented from sailing. About 
the same time the British ship Grange was taken in American 
waters by the French war vessel L'Embuscade. The act was 
considered a breach of our sovereignty, and the prize seized 
and restored to her British owners. Numerous prizes were, 
on proof that the capturing vessels had been fitted out in the 
United States, restored to their owners. (See remarks of Lord 
Stowell, in case of the Betty Cathcart, 1 Rob. Adm. R. 220, 
Lond. Ed. ; Jansen vs. The Vrow Christina, &c.. Bee's Adm., 
11 ; s. c. affirmed, 3 Dallas, 133.) The government did not 
wait for action by the British representative, but held its own 
officers to the duty of vigilance. The governors of the States 



14 ' ENGLISH NEUTRALITY. 

were frequently called upon to arrest vessels about departijjg 
(Hamilton's "VV., vol. 2, 463). In one case we find this language 
used: 

" The case in question is that of a vessel armed, equipped and manned 
in a port of the United States, for the purpose of committing hostilities on 
a nation at peace with us. 

"As soon as it was perceived that such enterprises would be attempted, 
orders to prevent them were despatched to all the States and ports of the 
Vhivn. In consequence of these the governor of New York, receiving 
information that a sloop heretofore called the Folly, now the Kepublican, 
was fitting, arming and manning, to cruise against a nation with whom 
we were at peace, seized the vessel." 

The President being apprized, ordered her and the persons 
engaged to be delivered over to the tribunals for punishment. 
(3 Jeff. W. 386.) Such seizures were frequently made, the 
government entering into it as a matter of honor, not appear- 
ing to suppose that its duty would be performed by sitting 
coldly by until the British minister, under all the embarrass- 
ments of being a stranger, should produce irrefragable proof 
of infractions of its own laws. President Washington seems to 
have considered it a shameful and humiliating excuse foi: a 
government to plead that it " is ignorant of what is carried 
on daily and repeatedly in its own country." 
> In 1795, John Etienne Gurnit was indicted and found guilty 
of augmenting, in the port of Philadelphia, the armament of 
Les Jumeaux (a vessel formerly engaged in commerce), in order 
that she might cruise as a French privateer. The following 
extract from the charge of the Judge at the trial, not only ex- 
hibits the state of law and opinion in America, but also dis- 
closes a state of facts very similar to those in the case of the 
Oreto ; but differing in the one great particular, that, in the 
American case, the vessel was, by the " vigilance of the public 
police," prevented from departing. . 
Patterson, Justice^ said: 

" The vessel in question arrived in this port with a cargo of coffee and 
sugar from the West Indies ; and so appears to have been employed by 
her owner with a view to merchandize, and not with a view to war. The 
inquiry, therefore, is limited to this consideration, whether, after her 
arrival, she was fitted out in order to cruise against any foreign nation 
being at peace with the United States. It is true she left the wharf with 
only four guns, the number that she had brought in to the port ; but it is 
equally true, that when she had dropped to some distance below, she took 



IS THE ALABAMA A BRITISH PIRATE? 16 

ou board three or lour guns more, a number of muskets, water casks, &c. ; 
and it is manifest, that other guns were ready to be sent to her by the pilot 
boat. These circumstances clearly prove a conversion from the original 
commercial -design of the vessel to a design of cruising against the enemies 
of France, and of course against a nation at peace with the United States, 
since the United States are at peace with all the world. Nor can it be 
reasonably contended, that the articles thus put on board the vesgel were 
articles of merchandize ; for if that had been the case, they would have 
been mentioned in her manifest on clearing out of the port, whereas it is 
expressly stated that she sailed, in ballast. 

" If they were not to be used for merchandize, the inference is inevitable 
'that they were to be used for war. No man would proclaim on the house- 
top that he intended to fit out a privateer. The intention must be collected 
from all the circumstances in the transaction, which the jury will investi- 
gate, and on which they must decide ; but if they are of opinion that it 
was intended to convert this vessel from a merchant ship into a cruiser, 
every man Avho was knowingly concerned in doing so, is guilty in the 

contemplation of the law If the defendant has been concerned 

in the offence, there is no doubt that it is effected, as far as it was in his 
powerto complete it. The illegal outfit of the vessel was accomplished ; 
and that an, additional numl:)er of cannon was not sent to augment her 
force, was not owing to his respect to tlie laws, but to the vigilance of the 
public police." 

It was impossible, however, with our limited navy, to prevent 
entirely such expeditions, and at last, at the risk of a war with 
our friend, it was resolved in Cabinet Council, on the 15th of 
August, 1793, " That the Minister of the French Republic be . 
informed that the President considers the United States as 
bound by positive assurances given in conformity to the laws 
of neutrality, to effectuate the restoration of, or make compen- 
sation for, prizes which shall have been made of any of the 
parties at war with France, subsequent to the 5th day of June 
last, by privateers fitted out in their ports. That it is conse- 
quently expected that he will cause restitution to be made of all 
prizes taken and brought into our ports subsequent to the 
above-mentioned day by such privateers ; in defect of which 
tlie President considers it incumbent upon the United States to 
indemnify the owners of those prizes ; the indemnification to be 
reimbursed by the French nation." (4 Hamilton's Works, 
468.) At the same time Mr. Jefferson's important letter to 
Mr, Hammond was written.* 

* Philadelphia, September 5, 1793. 
giR : — I am honored with yours of August 30th ; mine of the 7th of that month 
assured that measures were taken for excluding from all further asylum in our ports, 
vessels armed in them to cruise on nations with which we are at pdaee, and for the < 



16 ENGLISH NEUTRALITY. 

The basis of this voluntary action of our government was, 
that sound maxim of the law of nations, that a state is prima 
facie responsible for whatever is done within its jurisdiction, 
since it must be presumed to be capable of preventing or punish- 
ing offences committed within its boundaries ; and that a body 

res'^oratipn of the prizes, the " Lovely* Lass," " Prince William," "Henry," and* the 
"Jane, of Dublin ;"'and should the measures for restitution fail in their effect, the 
President considered it as incumbent on the United States to make compensation 
for the vessels. ■ ♦ 

We are bound by our treaties with three of the belligerent nations, by all the 
means in our power to protect and defend their vessels and effects in our ports, 
or watei'S or on the seas near our shores, and to recover and restore the same to the 
i-ight owners, when taken from them. If all the means in our power are used, and 
fail in their effect, we are not bound by our treaties with those nations to make com- 
pensation. 

Though wehave no similar treaty with Great Britain, itwas the opinionof the Presi- 
dent that wo should use toward that nation the same rule, which, under this article, 
was to govern us with the other nations ; and even to extend it to captures made on 
the high seas and brought into our ports ; if done by vessels which had been at war 
with them. « 

Having, for particular reasons, forborne to use all the means in our power, for the 
restitution of the three vessels mentioned in my letter of August 7th, the President 
thought it incumbent on the United States to make compensation for them. And 
though nothing was said in that letter of other vessels taken under like circumstances 
and brought in after the 5th of June, and before the date of that letter, yet when 
the same forbearance had taken place, it was and is his opinion that compensation 
will be equally due. 

As to prizes made under the same circumstances, and brought in after the date of 
that letter, the President determined that all the means in our power should be used 
for their restitution. If these fail, as we should not be bound by our treaties to make 
compensation to the other powers in the analogous case, he did not mean to give an 
opinion that it ought to be done to Great Britain., But still, if any cases shall arise 
subsequent to that date, the circumstances of which shall place them on similar 
ground with those before it, the President would think compensation equally in- 
cumbent on the United States. 

Instructions are giren to t\& governors of the different states to use all the means 
in their power for restoring prizes of this last description, found within their ports. 
Though they will, of course, take measures to be informed of them, and the general 
government has given them the aid of the custom-house officers for this purpose, yet 
you will be sensible of the importance of multiplying the channels of their informa- 
tion as far as shall depend on yourself, or any person under your direction, in order 
that the governors may use the means in their power for making restitution. 

Without knowledge of the capture they cannot restore it. It will always be best 
to give the notice to them directly ; but any information which you shall be pleased 
to send me, also, at ^ny time, shall be forwarded to them as quickly as distance will 
.permit. 

Hence you will j)erceive, sir, that the President contemplates restitution or com- 
pensation in the case before the 7th of August ; and after that date restitution if it 
can be effected by any means in our power; and that it will be important you should 
substantiate the facts, that such prizes are in our ports or waters. 

Your list of the privateers illicitly in our ports, is, I believe, correct. 

With respect to losses by detention, waste, spoliation, sustained by vessels taken 
as before-mentioned, between the dates of June 5th and August 7th, it is proposed, 
as a provisional measure, that the collector of the customs of the district, and the 
British consul or any other person you please, shall appoint persons to establish 
the value of the vessel and cargo at the time of her capture, and of her arrival in 
the port ii'to which she is brought, according to their value in that port. If this 
shall be agreeable to you, and you will be pleased to signify it to me, with the names 
of the prizes understood t^ be of this description, instruction will be given accord- 
ingly, to the collector of the customs where the respective vessels are. 

I have the honor to be, Ac. 

• • Thomas Jeffercon. 

George Ha"mjiond, Esq. 



IS THE ALABAMA A BRITISH PIRATE: 1» 

politic is, therefore, responsible for the acts of individuals 
■\vhich are acts of actual or meditated hostility towards a nation, 
with which the government of these subjects professes to main- 
tain relations of friendship or neutrality. (3 Phillimore's In- 
ternational Law, 218 ; Grotius, 1. ii., c. 21, § 2 ; Puffendorf, 1. 
i., c. 5, § ult.) In the year following, upon the application of 
England, and for her better protection (Canning's Speeches, 
vol. 4, pp. 152-3, Abr. Debates in Congress, vol. 7), we passed 
th6 act of 1794 ; and lastly, and most imjiortant to be remem- 
bered when the day of settlement comes, we, in that 3'ear, 
entered inlo a treaty of amity and commerce with her, by 
which, on her demand, loe undertoolc to pay to her and her 
citizens all losses suffered by armed vessels fitted out in our 
jjorts.* 

Our conduct during this whole period received, and still re- 
ceives, the commendation of all enlightened publicists. Philli- 
more and Ward are profuse in their praise of the justice, 
dignity, and intelligence, which marked the action of this 
government ; and George Canning lost no opportunity in Par- 
liament to urge an emulation of our example. In the debates, 
upon Lord Althorpe's petition for the repeal of the Foreign 
Enlistment Act (Hansard's Pari. Debates N. S., vol. 8, pp. 
1019-59, Canning's Speeches, vol. 4, pp. 152-3), he said : 

"It surely could not be forgotten, that, in 1794, this country complained 
of various breaches of neutrality (though much inferior to thos« now under 
consideration), committed on the part of subjects of the United States. 
What was the conduct of thai nation in consequence ? Did she resent the 
complaint as an infringement of her independence?- Did it refuse to Jake 
such steps as would insure the immediate observance of neuiraliti/ ? 
Neither. In 1794, immediately after the application from the British 
government, the legislature of the United States passed an act, prohibiting, 
under heavy penalties, the engagement of American citizens in the armies 
of any foreign powers. f Was that the only instance of the kind? It was 
but last year (1818) that the United States passed an act, by which the 

■•■ Extract from 7th article of treaty of 1794: " And whereas, certain merchants and 
others, his majesty's subjects, complain that in the course of the war they have sus- 
tained loss and damage by reason of tlie capture of their vessels and merchandise, 
taken within the limits and jurisdiction of the States, and brought into the ports of 
the same, or taken by vessels originaUy armed in the .ports of the said Slates : It is 
agreed, that in all cases where restitution shall not have been made agreeably to the 
tenor of the letter from Mr. Jefferson to Mr. Hammond, of September 6th, 1793, the 
complaints of the parties shall be referred to the commissioners hereby appointed," 
Ac, &c. 

f It was because we stood by this very act, and would not permit Mr. Crampton to 
infringe it by recruiting for the war against Russia, that we were pressed almost to 
the point of hostilities in 1855. 



18 ENGLISH NEUTRALITY. 

act of 1794 was confirmed in every respect, again prohibiting the engage- 
ment of their citizens in the service of any foreign powers ; and pointing 
distinctly to the service of Spain or the South American provinces." 

He might have added, had he spoken at a later period, that 
in 1838 we again, upon the request of Great Britain, called in 
legislative aid ; this time to prevent succor to the Canadian 
rebellion. Again, in 1823, he said. (Canning's Speeches, vol. 
5, pp. 50-1) : 

" If I wished for a guide in a system of neutrality, I would take that 
laid down by Am'erica in the days of the presidency of Washington and 
the secretaryship of Jefferson. Here, sir," he added, after stating what 
\ve had done, " I contend, is the principle on which we ought to act." 

After the treaty of 1794, the efforts of our government to 
prevent infractions of its neutrality were still increased. 

In 1803 (President's Message, October IT), Mr. Jefferson 
said : 

" We have seen, with sincere concern, the flames of war lighted up 
again in Europe ; and nations, with which v»-e have the most friendly and 
useful relations, engaged in mutual destruction. * * '••" In the course 
of this conflict, let it be our endeavor, as it is our interest, to cultivate the 
friendship of the belligerent nations hy every act oj" justice and innocent 
Jciiidness ; to receive their armed vessels with hospit&lity from the dis- 
tresses of the sea; but to administer the means of annoyance to none; to 
establish in our harbors such a police as may maintain law and order ; to 
restrain our citizens from embarking, individually, in a war, in which 
their countvy has no part, and to puiiish severely those persons, citizen or 
alien, who usurp our flag not entitled to it."''' 

f 

In 1805, still greater vigor was announced. Mr. Jefferson, 
in the annual message of that year, says, aft^r reciting certain 
infractions of our neutrality and sovereignty : 

" These enormities appearing to be unreached by any control of their 
sovereigns, I found it necessary to equip a force, to cruise within our OAvn 
seas, to arrest all vessels of this description found hovering on our coasts 
within the limits of the Gulf Stream, and to bring in the offenders for 
trial as pirates." (Am. State Pap., For. Rel., vol. 1, p. 60.) 

In 1817, Spain was engaged in a contest with her colonies. 
The proximity of the scene of conflict, the sympathy which our 
people naturally held with the struggling colonies, and the ad- 

* It is well known that the "Alabama" usually approaches her victims under the 
English flag ; see papers in the matter of the " Brilliant," pu^jlished by the New York 
Chamber of Commerce, 1862. 



,IS THE ALABAMA A BRITISH PIRATE? 19 

venturous character of our seamen, all combined to make in- 
terference feasible and attractive. Many attempts were made, 
the better to prevent which, we pnssed the act of 1818, alluded 
to by Mr. Canning. A voluminous correspondence took place 
between Don Luis de Onis, the Spanish minister, and the State 
Department, touching these armaments, a critical examination 
of which Avill show that the charges now constantly made by 
the English press, that our government was derelict at that 
time are not well founded.* Some vessels escaped, perhaps, in 
spite of our vigilancie. One case, which occurred in Baltimore, 
has been related to me by a gentleman who was cognizant of 
the fact. A suspected vessel had been seized, and, to prevent 
her going to sea before the matter could be investigated, her 
sails were taken from her and packed in a. warehouse. After 
a time, the captain, who persistently asserted his innocence, 
asked permission to take the sails to spread them for drying, 
they being in danger of mildew. The port oflScer, a confiding, and 
not over-shrewd person, consented, and in the night the vessel 
slipped aAvay, leaving the simple official to make the best settle- 
ment with his government that he could. Upon the final adjust- 
ment of the respective claims between Spain and the United 
States, it was not denied by us that we were liable to make com- 
pensation tQ sufferers by armed vessels, which we might have 
stopped ; but, on the contrary, we took from Spain a release from 
all claims of this character, as part of the consideration for the 

■•■■ The Spanish minister complaineil to our government that hostile expeditions were 
being fitted out in Louisiana, to aid the insurrectionary parties in South America. 
The complaint was immediately referred to the proper person, in New Orleans, and 
the result was, that our owu olBcers were set to work, without Spanish aid, and suc- 
ceeded in breaking up almost entirely the S3'stem. 

Many persons were prosecuted and seven vessels seized, of which, three being 
found guilty, were condemned. Nine or ten prizes were libelled and restored to their 
Spanish owners, on the ground that the capturing vessels had been fitted out and 
armed, or had their forces augmented in the waters of the United States. Mr. Dick, 
the United States District Attorney, says, '• It is notorious, that to no cme point of 
duty have the civil and military authorities of the United States more strenuously, 
or, it is believed, more successfully, devoted their attention, than to the discovering 
and suppressing all attempts to violate the laws in this respect. Such attempts have 
never been successful, except when conducted under circumstances of concealment 
that eluded discovery ?ind almost suspicion ; or when carried on at some remote point 
of the coast, beyond the reach of detection or discovery. In every instance where 
it was known that these illegal acts were attempting, or where it was afterwards 
discovered that they had been committed, the persons engaged, so far as they were 
known, were prosecuted, while the vessels fitted out or attempted to be fitted out, 
have been seized and libelled, under the act of 6th June, 1704; and when captures 
have been made by vessels thus fitted and armed, and their force augmented in our 
waters, and the prizes brought within onj- waters, or even found upon the high seaa 
htj our cruisers, they have been restored to the Sjianisli owner, and in some instances 
damages awarded against the captors." Niles' {leg., p. 63. 



20 ENGLISH NEUTRALITY. 

concessions which Tve then made. (Treaty with Spain, 1819.) 
And on December 7th, 1819, President Monroe declared to the- 
■world, (Annual Message,) referring to Spanish matters: 

" It is gratifying to have it in my power to state, so strong has been 
the sense throughout the whole community of what, is due to the character 
and obligations of the nation, that very few examples of a contrary kind 
have occurred." 

In 1838, our government was again zealous in the enforce- 
ment of what had by this time become its traditional polfcy; 
and used its most vigorous efforts in endeavoring to prevent 
all interference by our people in the disturbances then existing 
in Canada. In an official letter, Mr. Webster says : 

*' The President directs nie to say that it is his fixed resolution that all 
such disturbers of the public peace and violators of the laws of their 
country shall be brought to exemplary punishment. " (Webster's Works^ 
vol. 6, p. 2G0.) ' 

In the same volume Mr. Webster refers to the fixed American 
doctrine on this subject, especially the practice of directing our 
officers to watch for infringements of neutrality, without waiting 
for information, and cites the instructions given our army during 
the war for Texan independence. (Ibid. p. 452.) 

The next occasion on which Great Britain, by taking a bel- 
ligerent attitude, forced upon us the embarrassment and an- 
noyance of the neutral character, was during the war with 
Russia, in 1854-6. It has been very loosely charged that, at 
that time, armaments for Russia were permitted to go on here, 
and that some war-vessels intended for that nation escaped. 
The best investigation which I have been able to give to that 
period fails to discover any vessel which can be traced to the 
Russians, or which ever caused, or attempted to cause, damage 
to the other belligerents. At the close of the year 1855, which 
was but a short time before the close of the war, the President 
of the United States was able to declare (Annual Message, 
Dec. 31): , ' 

"Whatever concern may have been felt by either of the belligerent 
powers lest private armed cruisers or other vessels in the service of one, 
should be fitted out in the ports of this country to depredate on the com- 
merce of the other, all such fears have proved to be utterly groundless. 
Our citizens have been withheld from any such act by good faith, and by 
respect for the law." 



< 



IS THE ALABAMA a' BRITISH PIRATE? 21 

As soon as hostilities had commenced, this government was 
informed of the fact bj Her Majesty's ambassador, Mr. Cramp- 
ton, who improved the occasion to say : 

"The allied governments confidently trust that tl»e governments of 
countries, which remain neutral during this war, will sincerely exert 
every effort to enforce upon their subjects or citizens the necessity of 

observing strict neutrality and that the United States 

government will give orders that no privateers under Russian colors, shall 
be equipped or victualled in the ports of the United States ; and also that 
the citizens of the United States shall rigorously abstain from taking part 
in armaments of this nature, or in any other measure opposed to the 
duties of strict neutrality." 

Mr. Marcy, our then Secretary of State, evidently defined 
the word "enforce" by the light of sound reason, and the un- 
varying practice of America; and he expressed his idea that' 
to enfovce the observance of a law, is to preve7it its infringe- 
me.nt in the first instance, and promised the exercise of all the 
power of the government to '-'•enforce obedience to the neu- 
trality laws." (Letter to Mr. Crampton, April 28, 1854.) 

During that war, much excitement was caused in England 
by the announcement that the barque Maury, of New York, 
belonging to a highly respectable mercantile firm (the owners 
of the Jacob Bell, lately burned by the Florida), had been 
detected in shipping arms to the enemy, and had been seized. 
The real truth about that matter seems never yet to have 
reached the British public. The facts were, that the barque 
was openly advertised for China, a^d was loading on freight. 
She was seized on the application of the British consul, sus- 
tained by very suspicious affidavits. An examination of her 
cargo, &c., proved her innocence, and the consul made a public 
apology in the columns of the New York Herald of October 
24, 1855, for the seizure.* The owners did not let the matter 

* The following letter will show the motives and the promptness with which our 
government then acted : 

Attorney-General's Office, 21d October, 1855. 

Sir : — I have received your letter of the 19th instant, communicating the result 
of inquiry regarding the barque ''Msury." 

The allegation against that vessel was improbable on its face ; but, determined as 
the President is not to suffer any of the belligerent powers to trespass on the neutral 
rights of the United States, it was deemed proper to investigate the ease, out of re- 
spect for the British minister, through whom the British consul at New York, pre- 
ferred complaint in the premises. 

It is made manifest, by the documents which you transmit, that the suspicions of 
the British consul as to the character and destination of the "Maury," were wholly 



22 ENGLISn NEUTRALITY. 

rest, however^ but procured an investigation by the New York 
Chamber of Commerce, a committee of which body, composed 
of gentlemen whose probity cannot be doubted, reported, among 
other things: 

♦ . 

" The committee hiivc it from the highest authority, that the Govern- 
ment has no knowledge, belief, or suspicion, that any privateer or otlier 
armed vessel is fitting out, or has been fittted out, in this country, for or 
against any of the European belligerents."* (Report on seizure of the 
barque Maury, N. Y. Chamb. Com., 1855.) 

erroneous; and justice to her owners and freighters requires th.at the libel agnirist 
her be dismissed. 

I have the honor to be. 

Very respectfully, 

C. CUSIIING. 

Hon. John McKeow, 

Attorney of United States, New York. 

••■ At the same time the Chamber of Comtnerce passed the following resolutions 
which they justly claimed as expressing the universal sentiment of the American 
public : 

"1. Resolved, That the Chamber of Commerce of New York receive and adopt 
the report as a correct statement, and as containing the sense of this body on tbo 
subject. 

" 2. Resolved, That no proper amends or apology have been marlc to A. A. Low & 
Brothers, for the charge brought against them, which, if true, would have rendered 
them infamous ; nor to the merchants of this city and country, so falsely and injuri- 
ously assailed. 

" 3. Resolved, That the merchants of New York, as part of the body of merchants 
of the United States, will uphold the government in the full maintenance of the neu- 
trality laws of the country; and we acknowledge and adopt, and always have re- 
garded, the acts of the United States for preserving its neutrality as binding in 
honor and conscience, as well as in law ; and that we denounce those who violate 
them as disturbers of the peace of the world, to be held in universal abhorrence." 

It would be impossible to illustrate tlio difference of conduct on the part of England and 
America, better than by printing side by side the papers in ihe cases of the " Maury" and the "Ala- 
bama," That cannot be done here for want of space, but substantially the facts were as follows : 
The Brilish consul through the British Minister gave notice to our government that "a person 
(name not given j, who deponent believes to be in the pay of Russia, has given him a full expla- 
nation of the armament on board the said veirsel ;" . . . also, that this deponent "(jraiAered 
from the person in question that the said ' Maury! would, wlien outside, ship a new crew of about 
eighty men," &c., to go in piirBuit of the Cunard steamers. This statement of the con>urs was 
backed Ijy the affidavits of two policemen, who swore upon inforination and belief that the vessel 

' -was fiired out as a Kussian privateer, but stated no otlier information or ground of belief than 
she had taken on board some cannon, small arms, and cannon ball, and that the mate said that it 
was a " damned queer cargo" for the China Seas. Our government j a-t appears by Mr Cushing's 
letter, considered '• the allegation against the vessel as improbable on its face," but still ordered 
it to be seized and held until the truth could be ascertained. The seizure of the vessel was the 
Jirst notice to the owners that any suspicion of her was entertained ; and they immediately made 
a full and frank statement concerning her, by which and the snl^sequent investigation it ap- 
peared that she was loading on freight for China ; that there was nothing peculiar about her rig 
or build ; and that the cannon were shipped on freight to an American gentleman in Canton ; 
and that the addition to her armament of two guns was on account of the increasing danger 
from Chinese pirates. The libel was after these explanations "lifted," with the consent of the 
counsel for the British consul. 

The distinguishing features of this ca.se are the promptness with which the vessel was seized 
and held until the suspicions against her should be removed ; and the readiness of the owners 
10 give all information concerning her. 

hi the cise of the "Alabama," as has been shown, tb.e British government refused to interfere' 
with the freedom of the suspected ve.ssel until proof suflicient to convict her was produced, and 
by their captiousness and delay gave her plenty of tiin^ to get away before any proceedings 
Could bo instituted ; and meanwhile her owners, though admitting tiial she was a war-vessel 
built for a forei.sjn government, refused to give any further information about her. 

One of the affidavits presented to the Board of Customs and Lord Russell, was that of William 

■ Passinoro, who swore he had been eug.iged by Capt. Butcher to sail in the " 290," with the ex- 
press understanding that she was going to flght for the "government of the Confederate States 
of America." That he had joined the vessel in Messrs. Laird & Co.'s yard at Birkenhead, and 



IS THE ALABAMA A BRITISH PIRATE? 23 

The first, and, so far as I aria able to learn, the only serious 
attempt to violate our neutrality laws during that war, was made 
by Mr. Crampton, the British minister, in endeavoring to re- 
cruit men here for the British service. It is proper to remark 
incidentally, that fey .the direction of Lord Clarendon, Mr. 
Orampton entered openly upon the business of recruiting in 
New York. As sooli as this was known, our government in- 
dignantly remonstrated, and the British government promptly 
apologized, disavowed any design to infringe our laws, and dis- 
continued the business. This course was entirely satisfactory 
to us, and the matter was supposed to be ended, when it was 
discovered that Mr. Crampton and his agents had simply re- 
moved their recruiting office across our lines, and were engaged 
in the endeavor to induce men to leave the United States 'with 
the purpose of enlisting. For this second offence, marked, as 
It was, by covert fraud, our government determined that no 
apology would suffice, and finally suspended diplomatic rela- 
tions with Mr. Crampton, having been unable to obtain his 
recall. ' In the correspondence upon this subject, some things 
al-e to be found bearing upon the specific topic which we have 
in hand. Thus, Mr. Buchanan, addressing Lord Clarendon, 
made use of these words,' quoted from a letter of direction 
wi-itten to him by Mr. Marcy : 

" In the early stage of this war, the British government turned its 
attention to our neutrality laws, and particularly to the provisions which 
forbid the fitting out and manning of privateers for foreign service. Any 
remissness on our part in enforcing these provisions would have been re- 
garded by that government as a violation of our neutral relations. No 
one need be at a loss to conjecture how our conduct would have been 
viewed by the allies, or lohat ivould liave been their course towards the 
United States, if we had not denounced and resisted any attempt on the 
p&,rt of their enemy to send their agents into our ports to ft out privateers 
and engage sailors to man them." (Mr. Buchanan to Lord Clarendon, 
July G, 1855.) 

On the 28tb of December, Mr. Marcy, still speaking of the 
offensive recruiting, said ; 

remained on her several days. That he found about thirty old men-of-war's men on board, 
among whom it was " well known that she was going out as a privateer for the Confederate 
government to act against ths United States, under a commission from Mr. Jefferson Davis." 

Yet, this affidavit, proving,. prima /acie, as it does the character of the vessel, was, with other 
sustaining it, in the hands of English officials for at least tea day^ before they were able to deter- 
mine whether they should talce the precaution of holding the vessel to abide the event of exami- 
nation. Nor has any action yet been taken against Capt. Butcher for a criminal infringement 
of the 2d section of .o9 Geo. III., which, under severe penalties, forbids the hiring or enlisting 
any man to serve against a friendly nation. 

The distiagnishing features of this case do not require to be pointed out. 



24 ENGLISH NEUTRALITY. 

" Not long since Mr. Crampton represented to this government that the 
barque Maury was being fitted out in New York as a privateer. The 
evidence, if it could be called such, to support the charge, consisted of 
affidavits detailing loose Tumors, and some cii'cnmsiancrs about Jier equip- 
ment which justified the hare susjricion that she was intended for an illegal 

purpose ; but'the President, without the least hesitation, 

or delay" — (Mr. Crampton's application was made at Washington on the 
12th of October, and the Maury was seized at New York, nearly four 
hundred miles distant, on the 13th) — " ordered proceedings to be instituted 
against the vessel, and all persons who might be found implicated. If 
this government had replied to Great Britain iliaUinasinuch an Mr. Cranqj- 
ton had not made a definite ehanje—had not named the j)ersons accused, 
with a ijrecise statement of their acts, or lohen or where done — no step would 
be taken until these preliminary jnatters should have 'been attended to: 
would such a reply have been what her Majesty's ministers might have 
expected ? Woidd it have been deemed courteous or friendly io the British 
(jovernment ?" 

Such was the action and language of this nation in the case 
of the Maury. The true history of the Crampton difficulty 
may be found at length in the supplementary volume of " Mes- 
sage and Documents" for 1855 ; and in the speeches of G. H. 
Moore, Roebuck, Baillie, Cobden, Lord John Russell, and the 
Earl of Derby, in Parliament, during 1855 and 1856. 

The case of the Grand Admiral is another frequently al- 
luded to by the British press, and it is only necessary to say 
that this ship was ordered by the Russian government before 
the outbreak of hostilities ; that its construction was suspended 
during the whole of the war ; and that she did not sail from 
this country until -1859, three years after peace was declared. 
(See letter of W. H. Webb, Esq., published by N. Y. Chamb. 
of Com., 1863.) 

The purchase and clearance of the steamship " United 
States" is now being made use of by those English journals 
which are conducted in the interest of the rebellion and slavery 
— convertible terms at present in America — to justify, by an 
American precedent, the pif atical enterjorises in which British 
merchants are now engaged. . In this, as in all the other cases, 
an American may well say : 

" Mark, now, how plain a tale shall put you down." 

In 1848, an attempt was made to consolidate the German 
people into one government. The new government sent com- 
missioners to this country to purchase some steam war vessels. 



IS THE ALABAMA A BRITISH PIRATE? 25 

The commissioners addressed our government, openly throuo-h 
the German minister, and the President, in courtesy, granted 
the services of some of our naval officers to aid in the selection, 
and the use of our navy-yard, for the refitting of the steamer 
in question. While this was going on, the government at 
Washington were informed that the purchasers of this steamer 
were in some way parties to a petty controversy,\ then pro- 
gressing, under the name of the Schleswig-Holstein war. 
Upon receipt of this information, all facilities for finishing the 
vessel were at once withdrawn, and it was only after a long 
negotiation that she was permitted to sail, without arms, with 
just men enough to take her across the Atlantic ; and only 
after having given bonds in $900,000 that she should never be 
useil against any nation with whom we were at peace. She 
reached Liverpool, and there remained until peace was de- 
clared, and, shortly after, was changed into a passenger-ship, 
and plied betAveen this port and Galway, as the " Indian Em- 
pire." (Letter of Leopold Bierwith, Esq., pub. by N. Y. 
Chamb. of Com., 1863.) 

Thus stands the record of American neutrality. History 
may be fairly challenged to show another instance of such 
magnanimity, consistency, and fairness. 

Should we examine thoroughly the record of Great Britain 
upon this matter of mai-itime neutrality, it would be found 
entirely consistent on one point — "Britannia rules the waves." 
To express the probable reasons for whatever inconsistencies 
on other points history might discover, would necessitate harsh 
allusions to certain national characteristics, which, justly or 
unjustly, the traditions of mankind have ascribed to the insular 
kingdom. And since it is not the purpose of this discussion to 
revive memories of past misconduct, but instead, to discover the 
true, legal, and moral obligations which bind nations as they 
may be derived from instances of past good conduct, it will be 
necessary to cite but two cases — and those the most notable — 
in which Great Britain has been called upon to declare her un- 
derstandng of what true neutrality consists in. It will be seen 
that in one case she demands, and in the other performs, neu- 
trality. 

The first instance has special relation to rebellion, being the 
protest of England against the clandestine assistance which 



26 ENGLISH NEUTllALITY. 

France permitted her citizens to give the revolted Attiericaii 
colonies, or rather her statement of reasons justifying tvar upon 
France for that cause. The written statement of these just 
grounds of war is found in the celebrated 3Iemoire Jiistificatif, 
understood' to have been prepared for the king by the historian 
Gibbon. But for the proper names and dates there given, one 
might suppose that Mr. Gibbon, with prophetic foresight, had 
prepared this document for presentation by Mr. Adams to the 
English government of the present day.* 

* The following extracts arc made from the Memoire Justificatif, which may be 
found printed in full in the British Annual Register for 1779, vol. xxii., p. 404. . 

"An enterprise so vain and so difficult as that of hiding from the eyes of Great 
Britain and of all Europe the proceedings of a commercial company associated for 
furnishing the Americans with whatever could nourish and maintain the fire of a 
revolt, was not attempted. The informed public named the chief of the enterprise, 
wh'ise house was established at Paris ; his correspondents at Dunkirk, Nantz, und 
Bordeaux, were equally known. The immense magazines which they formed, and 
which they replenished every day, were laden in ships that they built or bought, 
and they scarcely dissembled their objects or the place of their destination. These 
vessels commonly took false clearances for the French islands in America, but the 
commodities which composed their cargoes were sufficient before the time of their 
sailing to discover the fraud and artifice. These suspicions Avere quickly confirmed 
by the course they held, and at the end of a few weeks it was not surprising to hear 
they had fallen into the hands of the king's ofiicers, cruising in the American seas, 
who took them even within sight of the coasts of the revolted colonies. This vigi- 
lance was but too well justified by the conduct of those who had the luck or cunning 
to escape it, since they approached America only to deliver to the rebels the arms 
and ammunition which they had taken on board for their service. The marks of 
these facts, which could be considered only as manifest breaches of the faith of 
treaties, multiplied continually, and the diligence of the king's ambassador to com- 
municate his complaint and proofs to the court of Versailles, did not leave him the 
shameful and humiliating resource of appearing Ignorant of what was carried on 
and daily repeated in the very heart of the country. He pointed out the names, 
number, and quality of the ships that the commercial agents of America had fitted 
out in the ports of France, to carry to the rebels arms, warlike stores, and even 
French officers who had engaged in the service oT the revolted colonies. The dates, 
places, and persons, were always specified with a precision that afforded the minis- 
ters of his most Christian majesty the greatest facility of being assured of these re- 
ports, and of stopping in time the progress of these illicit armaments. Among a 
crowd of examples which accuse the court of Versailles of want of attention to fulfil 
the conditions of peace, or ratiier its constant attention to nourish fear and discord, 
it is impossible to enumerate them all — it is very diflicult to select the most striking 
objects. 

"Nine large ships, fitted out and freighted by the Sieur de Beaumarchais and his 
partners, in the month of Januarj', 1777, are not confounded with the Amphitrite, 
which carried about the same time a great quantity of ammunition and thirty 
French officers, who passed with impunity into the service of the rebels. Every 
month, almost every day, furnished new subjects of complaint; and a short memor- 
ial that Viscount Stormont, the king's ambassador, communicated to the Count de 
Vergennes in the month of November in the same year, will give a just but very 
imperfect idea of the wrongs which Britain had so often sustained. 

" There is a sixty-gun ship at Rockport, and an East India ship, pierced for sixty 
guns, at L'Orient. These two ships are destined for the service of the rebels. They 
are laden with different merchandize, and freighted by Messrs. Cleaumont, Holken & 
Lebatier. The ship L'Henrcux sailed from Marseilles the 2Gth of September under 
another name ; she goes straight to New Hampshire, though it is pretended she is 
bound to the French Islands. They have been permitted to take on board three 
thousand muskets and twenty-five thousand pounds of sulphur — a merchandize as 
necessary to the Americans as useless to the islands. This ship is commanded by 
M. Lundi, a French officer of distinction, formerly lieutenant to M. de Bouganville. 



IS TliE ALABAMA A BRITISH PIRATE: 27 

To this may be added the demand of Mr. Crampton at the 
commencement of the Russian war; and the action of his* 
government on hearing of the supposed outfit of the Maury. 

The instance selected to show to what length Great Britain 
feels herself bound to go in the performance of neutral obliga- 
tions relates to the conflict between Donna Maria and Don 
Miguel for the crown of Portugal. In 1827, Don Pedro, 

L'Hippopotame, belonging to the Sieur Beaumarchais, will have on board four thou- 
sand muskets and many warlike stores for the use of the rebels. There are about 
fifty PVench sliips laden with ammunition for the use of the rebels, preparing to 
sail to North America. They will go from Nantz, L'Orient, St. Malo, Havre, Bor- 
deaux, Bayonne, and other different ports. These are the names of some of tlie 
persons principally interested, M. Cleaumont, M. Menton," &c!, &c. 

"In this kingdom, where the will of the prince meets with no obstacle, succors so 
considerable, so public, so long supported, in flue, so necessary to maintain the waf 
in America, show clearly enough the most secret intentions of the most Christian 
Icing's ministers. But they still carried further their forgetfulness or contempt of 
the most solemn engagements, and it was not without their permission that an un- 
derhand and dangerous war issued from the ports of Franco under the deceitful 
mask of peace and the pretended flag of the American colonies. The favora.bie re- 
ception that their agents found with the ministers of the court of Versailles, quickly 
encouraged them to form and execute the audacious project of establishing a 
place of arms in the country which had served them for an asylum. They bad 
brought with them, or knew how to fabricate, letters of marque in the name of the 
American Congress, who had the impudence to usurp all the rights of sovereignty. 
The partnership, whose interested views easily embarked in all their designs, fitted 
out ships that they had cither built or purchased. They aimed them to cruise in 
the European seas; nay, even on the coasts of Great Britain. To save appearances, 
the captains of those corsairs hoisted the pretended American flag, buj; their crews 
were always cotnposed of a gre'at number of Frenchmen, who enteied vTith impunity 
uader the very eye? of their governors and the officers of the maritime provinces. 
And numerous swarms of tliese corsairs, animated by a sport of rapine, saiie<l from 
the ports of France, and after cruising in the British seas, re-entered or took shelter 
in the same ports. •■■ '■■■ '■* -■ ^^^ * ;;; 

"To the first representation of the king's ambassadors upon the subject of the 
privateers which were fitted out in the ports of France under American colors, the 
ministers of his most Christian majesty replied, with expressions of surprise and 
iildignation, and by a positive declaration that attempts so contrary to the faith of 
treaties and tlio public tranquillity should never be suffered. The train of events, 
of which a small number have been shown, soon manifested the inconstancy, or 
rather the falsehood, of the court of Versailles ; and the king's ambassador was 
ordered to represent to the French ministers the serious but inevitable consequences 
of their policy. He fulfilled his commission with all the consideration due to a re- 
spectable power, the preservation of whose friendship was desired, but wi'h a friend- 
ship worthy of a sovereign, and a nation little accustomed to do or to suffer injustice. 
The court of Versailles was called upon to explain its conduct and intentions without 
delay or evasion, and the king proposed to it the alternative of peace or war. 
France chose jicace, in order to wound her enemy more surely and secretly, without 
having anything to dread from her justice. She severely condemned those succors 
and those armaments, that the principles of public equity would not iicrmit lier to 
justify. She declared to the king's ambassador that she was resolved to banish the 
American corsairs immediately Irom all the ports of France, never to return again; 
and that she would take, in future, the most rigorous precautions to prevent the 
sale of prizes taken from the subjects of Gre;it liritain. The orders given to that 
effect astonished the partisans of the rebels, and seamed to check the progress of 
the evil; but subjects of complaint sprung up again daily; and the manner in 
which these orders were first eluded, then violated, and at length entirely forgotten 
by the merchants, privateers, nay, even by the royal officers, were not excusable by 
the protestations of friendship, with which the court of Versailles accompanied those 
infractions "of peace, until the very moment that the treaty of alliance, which it had 
signed with the agents of the revolted American colonies, was announced by the 
French ambassador in London." 



•28 ENGLISH NEUTRALITY. 

kaving retained to himself tlie empii'e of the Brazils, formally 
renounced the throne of Portugal in favor of his daughter, 
Donna Maria, and appointed his brother, Don Miguel, regent 
of the kingdom. Donna Maria was recognized by Great Britain 
and all the great powers as the lawful sovereign of Portugal. 
In 1828, however, Don Miguel induced a revolt, procured him- 
self to be proclaimed king, and succeeded in expelling the 
queen and her friends from most of her dominions. Terceira, 
ohe of the Azore Islands, remained faithful to her and in her 
possession. The Brazilian envoy at London applied to the 
British government for assistance, on the ground that the queen 
was the legitimate sovereign and Don Miguel a usurper. These 
facts were admitted by Lord Aberdeen, who refused assistance, 
however, assigning as the reason that, as England could not 
take notice of the merits of the domestic quarrels of another 
country, she must therefore conduct herself between the two 
according to the strict rule of duty governing neutral nations. 
About this time. a number of Portuguese refugees arrived in 
England and took up their residence in Portsmouth. It was 
suspected (I quote the language of Phillimore) that they were 
7neditating to fit out some expedition from these ports against 
Don Miguel, and the government, holding that to permit this 
would be a breach of neutrality, informed the Brazilian minis- 
ter that it would allow no such design to be carried on in 
British harbors, and that, for security's sake, the refugees must 
remove farther from the coast. The envoy stated that those 
troops were abt>ut to be conveyed, to Brazil, and accordingly 
four vessels, having on board six hundred and twenty-five un- 
armed men, sailed from Plymouth. The government suspected 
that the true design was to land these troops on Terceira, and, 
having given them notice before they sailed that any such at- 
tempt would be resisted, dispatched a fleet of armed vessels to 
watch and prevent a landing. .The expedition appeared off 
Terceira, and, being perceived by the English captain, was 
fired into and stopped, one man being killed. The Portuguese 
commander insisted upon his right to disembark upon the loyal 
territory of his sovereign, but being unarmed was unable to 
enforce his right, and his whole expedition was conducted 
several hundred miles to sea and there left, the English fleet 
returning to stand guard at the island. This act caused great 



IS THE ALABAMA A BKITISH PIRATE? 29 

excitement in England, and in Parliament the questions of in- 
ternational law involved were discussed with much ability. 
The government defended itself on the ground " that the 
refuo-ees had fitted out a warlike armament in a British port ; 
that the armament, having been equipped under the disguise 
of going to Brazil, had not been stopped before sailing ; and 
that they tvere therefore bound, by the duty of neutrality, to pre- 
vent by force an armament so equipped from disembarking, 
even in the Queen of Portugal's dominions." The government 
was supported by a majority in both houses of Parliament.- 
(Br. Annual Register for 1829 ; 3 Philli., 229'.) 

Thus we have, by a fair examination of the customary law of 

nations, and the general conduct thereunder of England and 

America respectively, arrived at a point from Avhich we may 

look about us and obtain a tolerably clear view of the legal 

conclusions and consequences which follow and belong to the 

unneutral acts of permitting the initial departure, the continued 

depredations, subsequent return, refitting, and jdeparture of the 

Alabama and. Florida from British ports. From this general view 

we perceive, as a matter of law, that neutrals are bound at all 

hazards to prevent, among other things, the fitting out in their 

■ dominions of warlike expeditions and ai-maments against either 

bellio-erent ; we see also, from the law and practice of Great 

Britain in other cases, that all facilities for this purpose exist in 

that kingdom, and that they may be and have been employed by 

the authorities of their own motion ; and we gather, from the 

spirit and language of the 3Iemoire Justificatif, that, in 1779, 

Great Britain considered that the practice of casting upon the 

representatives of the offended belligerent — strangers in the 

land — all the burden of proving the guilty character of such 

enterprises before any intervention of the neutral government 

can be obtained, was but little better than a fraudulent evasion 

of international duties. We gather also that America, in 1793, 

and at all times since, has acted in good faith upon the saine 

opinion, always interposing at the request of foreign powers, 

and requiring its own officers to be vigilant and positive in the 

effort to detect and suppress unneutral preparations ; and that 

as between this nation and Great Britain the latter has de-' 

mandedand we have always rendered the fullest and freest 

performance of neutral obligations. It is also seen that by 



30 ENGLISH NEUTRALITY. 

reason and usage the failure of a neutral nation to perform in 
good faith, and to the best of its ability, its obligations in this 
respect, is deemed to sustain a claim for compensation for all 
pecuniary damage growing out of its derelictions ; an4 even to 
justify reprisals and absolute war.* 

Yet, nothwithstanding all this, we find that Great Britain 
has permitted, within her harbors and domain, the fitting out 
of armaments notoriously intended to cruise against our com- 
merce ;^ and that the hostile armament has been permitted to 
sail unopposed from English shores upon its criminal business 
of lighting up the seas with burning merchantmen, days after 
the government had been in possession of what itself admitted 
to be sufficient proof of its clandestine character. Indeed, on 
the contrary from the Alabama being opposed, it is stated by 
the press, that the subordinate officials at Liverpool decided 
upon the value of a breach of the law of nations, by receiving 
a bond of twenty thousand pounds as the consideration and in- 
demnification for permitting the _ Alabama to proceed to sea, 
thus making the British nation a partner in her crimes and 
surety for all her acts of pecuniary damage. And the only 
excuse for this unprecedented fraud is drawn from the state of 
Sir John D. Harding's digestion, or what not> national honor," 
international justice, and the peace of great nations bound up 
with the bandages of a queen's advocate's gouty toe ! Moreover, 
although the culprit defies English revenue laws by sailing 
without a clearance ; and although the true nature of her 
voyage is soon made known in England by her burnings and 
destroyings ; and although she was known to be destined for 
the neighborhood of certain British ports, and does in fact 
make her appearance and cruise there for months, she is a,t the 

■•'•■ Great Britain tooli the right ground with spirit in the case of the Maury, acting, 
as she did, under the supposition that a real attempt was l)eing made to iit out an 
expedition for her enemy. She sent a Jlcet of five hundred fftinti to lie ut the Ber- 
mudas ; and when interrogated by Mr. Marcy as to the meaning of this menace, the 
Earl of Clarendon replied that those vessels were sent to that station because of 
"the unprovoked attitude of the United States, and that it teas resorted to for the pro- 
tectinn of British interests against any attach which might he made against them." 
(Levi's Annals of British Legislation, vol. i. p. 132. Mr. Buchanan to Mr. Marcy, 
Nov. 9, 1855.) This action w*s just and v/ise as it was spirited ; and had our govern- 
ment neglected or refused to seize the Maury, and had that vessel escaped and entered 
upon acts of hostility to English commerce, who can doubt th,at the next appeal 
which England would have made to us in favor of neutral conduct would have been 
conveyed in the roar of her cannon? What she then demanded is precisely what 
she is now bound to concede; and since she refuses that concession, there seems 
good ground to fear that the goliien rule is not set down among the maxims of 
British foreign policy. 



IS THE ALABAMA A BRITISH PIRATE? 31 

end of that time permitted to enter and lie in safety in a 
British port, without any effort to seize or detain her ; but, on 
the contrary, the local authorities of Kingston are seen coming 
actively to her assistance, and returning her escaped crew by 
force, the same as if she were a lawfully commissioned vessel, 
with whose master or owners the seam.en might have a lawful 
contract of service.* 

The legal liabilities which, under these circumstances, attach 
to the offending nation, are easily understood. Every nation, 
while it maintains the semblance "of domestic government, is 
responsible for the execution of its own laws, especially such 
as are, in their nature, promises or compacts with other na- 
tions. f If the Confederate States were an independent and 
recognized nation, so that these vessels could have a bona fide 
national character, England would still, under the circum- 
stances of their outfit, ,be responsible for them as if they were 
her own. And this would be so even if all the persons en- 
gaged in the matter were foreigners in England; for a stran- 
ger owes the same allegiance to the laws of a country, while 
ho remains in it, as a citizen; and the law has equal poAver 
over him to compel his obedience; and, consequently, the 
government of the State has no ground here for a distinction 
as to the liability it shall bear. It Avas upon this principle 
that, by the treaty of 1794, this nation agreed to make com- 
pensation for damages inflicted by French privateers fitted out 

« The following pungent hint is extracted from the English pami^hlet before re- 
ferred to : 

"It inn J' assist some to realize more clearly the serious nature of the case, to 
imagine that the ' Alabama' had been fitted out to cruise as a Mexican privateer for 
the purpose of committing hostilities against i'>«)ice, and that she had begun forth- 
with to burn French iiierchantmen in the Bay of Biscay. Every one must feel that 
no paltry excuses, like those put forward to the United States government, would 
have prevented the Emperor of the French from insisting on jn-onqH redress ; and 
that the British fjovernment would very speedily have found means for 2mtting an, 
end to her career." '' 

t Indeed, a state may not take lefugo behind defects of its municipal laws ; fo^- it 
is bound at its own peril to provide ettective domestic machinery to execute its in- 
ternational duties. It was -upon this principle that England stood in the matter of 
Alexander McLeod in 183S. McLeod had done an act for the British government, 
for which he was arrested as au offender against the laws of Neii> York. His govern- 
ment avowed the responsibility of his act, and demanded from the United States 
his release. The Secretary of State, Mr. Webster, admitted, that since the act had 
been done under orders, it was no longer an individual offence, but a matter between 
the two nations, and recommended his release, but explained that the Federal 
Government had no power to take him from the custody of the state officers. Eng- 
land refused— very properly — to entertain as an excuse any defect in our system,- 
saying, that every nation, pretending to hold relations with other nations, is bound 
to provide itself with the power to meet all just demands ; and had not the New York 
jury disagreed at the trial, we .should have had war upon that question. 



32 ENGLISH NEUTRALITY. ' 

in our ports. The philosophic statement of the principle is 
given by Burlemaqui, who cites Grotius and Heineccius, and 
is in turn cited by Phillimore (vol. ii., p. 230), with approval, 
in these words: 

" In civil societies, when a particnlai- member has done an injury to 
a stranger, the governor of the commonwealth is sometimes responsible 
for it, so that war may be declared against him on that account. But to 
ground this kind of imputation, we must necessarily suppose one of these 
two things, sufferance or reception, viz.: either that the sovereign has 
permitted this harm to be done to the stranger, or that he afforded a re- 
treat to the criminal. In the former case, it must be laid down as a 
maxim, that a sovereign who, knowing the crimes of liis subjects — as, for 
example, that they practise piracy on strangers — and, being able and 
obliged to hinder it, does not hinder it, renders himself criminal, because' 

he has consented to the bad action Now it is presumed that 

a sovereign knows what his subjects openly and frequently commit; and 
as to his power of preventing the evil, this is always presumed, unless the 
want of it be clearly proved." 

This principje extends, it will be perceived, so far as to 
make the neutral sovereign prima facie responsible for the un- 
neutral acts of the belligerents when done or initiated within 
his jurisdiction. All the more is he bound to prevent, or if he 
does not prevent, to compensate for such acts done by his own 
subjects; and the question remains, although no longer of the 
first importance, What is the national character of. the Oreto 
and Alabama ? Each of those vessels was entirely built, 
equipped, and fitted, in British waters by Englishmen. They 
are permitted to enter and lie in British ports as safely as if 
they were commissioned in her Majesty's service, at the same 
time that our cruisers are warned off, and forbidden, even 
when in distress, to enter for coal — as in the cases of the Tus- 
carora. Flambeau, and Saginaw. The Oreto went to sea with 
a crew consisting of fifty-two Englishmen and one American. 
She sailed under English papers for a legitimate port. Both 
were, at or about their departure, ascertained to be the private 
property of Englishmen. Unless some change of title has 
taken place, these vessels are yet owned in England by Eng- 
lishmen. If any such change has taken place, to whom has 
the title passed? Not to the Confederate States, or any re- 
bellious citizen of that portion of this nation; for, as between 
England and the rest of the world, these rebels are to be con- 
sidered belligerents, and* no contract between a citizen of a 



IS THE ALABAMA A BllITISll PIRATE? So 

neutral state and a belligerent, to aid in any way the prosecu- 
tion of war, is lawful ; on the contrary, every such agreement 
is, ah initio, void, and these vessels still remain the property 
of the British citizens w^ho built them. The principle of law 
here stated has been decided solemnly in both England and 
America. The English case is Demetrius de Wiltz v. Hen- 
dricks (9 Moore, C. P. Rep., 686-7; tried in 1824). The 
facts of that case involved a contract to raise money to aid 
the Greeks in their revolt against the Porte, the plaintiff 
claiming to act for the Exarch of Ravenna, imder power of 
attorney, and the defendant being an English broker. The 
contract was declared by Lord Chief Justice Best to be void by 
the law of nations. The principal American case is Kcnnett 
V. Chambers (14 How. U. S. Rep., 38, 44). The facts were 
that Chambers, a Texan general, had agreed to convey a large 
tract of Texan lands in consideration of advances made, and 
to be made, at Cincinnati, for the purpose of aiding the Texans 
to carry on the revolution against Mexico, with which power 
we w^ere at peace. The contract was made at Cincinnati, in 
1836, and the independence of Texas was not recognized by 
the President of the United States until 1837. A bill having 
been filed to obtain a specific performance of the contract to 
convey, the Court refused to enforce it, saying, "The contract 
is not only void, but the parties who advanced the money were 
liable to be punished in a criminal prosecution for a violation 
of the neutrality laws of the United States." 

Thus, it is seen that the Oreto and Alabama, originally 
sailing from English ports, manned by English law-breakers, 
are still the property of English ovrners; because all attempts 
on their part, if any such have been made, to convey their in- 
terests to our rebellious citizens, or any one of them, are abso- 
lutely void and of no effect. And it is a fair question for 
judicial and professional consideration, tvhether, in addition to 
the criminal proceedings given by the Foreign Enlistment Act, 
the owners of the Jacob Bell may not have their action for 
damages against Fatvcett, Preston ^^ Co., of Liverpool, the 
owners of the Florida; and the owners of the Brilliant, and 
other vessels destroyed by the Alabama, their respective actions 
against Messrs. Laird, of Birkenhead, the reputed owners of 
that vessel. 

One more, interesting, but still less important question, 
3 



34 ENGLISH NEUTRALITY. 

practically, relates to the specific character of these vessels 
and their crews. Are they pirates? Piracy is defined to be 
the ofience of depredating upon the high seas, without being 
authorized by any sovereign state. (Wheat. Int. L., P. 2, c. 2, 
§ 15.) These English sea-rovers claim, doubtless, to cruise 
under some kind of commission from the self-styled and un- 
recognized "Confederate States." I do not propose to dis- 
cuss, with much seriousness, here, a question, which being in 
this place of little import, may hereafter, in a difiierent dis- 
cussion, become of the first magnitude; still, I am compelled 
to say that, by the law «nd practice of nations, it appears that 
no commission from an unknown, unrecognized authority- can 
relieve the persons upon those vessels from the character of 
pirates, liable to pimishment as such by any nation who may 
have the power and the will to enforce the penalties for that 
crime. Hautefeuille says (Des Nations Neutres, tit. 3, ch. 2): 

'* It 18 admitted by all nations, that in maritime wars every individual 
who commits acts of hostility Without having received a regular commission 
from his sovereign, hotcevcr i-egularhj he may viake war, is regarded and 
treated as guilty of piracy." 

From what sovereign have the commanders of the Florida 
and Alabama received commissions ? Although they sail from 
English ports in an English bottom, they have no English 
commission. Although cruising in the interest of certain 
Americans, they have no commission from this government. 
There is no government, such as they claim to represent, in 
existence — at least, having any such existence as would afford 
a legal protection to them in case some nation which has not 
conceded to them belligerent rights, should choose to seize and 
try them as pirates : 

" For it is a firmly-established rule of British, American, and, indeed, 
all jurisprudence, that it belongs exclusively to governments to recognize 
new States; and that until such recognition, either by the government of 
the country in whose tribunal the suit is brought, or by the government to 
which the new state belongs, courts of justice are bound to consider /^e 
ancient state of things as existing." (2 Phillimore 25 ; Rose d. Ilimnely 
4 Cranch, 272; Iloyt v. Gelston 3 Wheat, r',24; The City of Berne vs. The 
Bank of England, 9 Vesey, 348.) 

Nor would it avail these men to plead that they are not — 
according to the general description of pirates — enemies to all 
mankind; for in the case of the Magellan pirates, in 1851 (sec 
the Jurist), the learned Dr. Lushington, of the High Court of 



IS THE ALABAMA A BRITISH PIRATE? 35 

Admiralty, declared, concerning the law of nations relating to 
, pirates: 

"If it was clearly proved that the aocused committed robbery and 
murder on the high seas, they were adjudged to be pirates, and suffered 
accordingly .It does not follow that, because rebels and in- 
surgents may commit against the ruling powers of their own country, 
acts of violence, they may not commit piratical acts against the subjects 
of other states. 

The same question arose shortly after the abdication of 

James IL, in a manner to make it, in all essentials, precisely 

parallel to the one on hand. 

" That case involved a discussion of the general principle, whether, 
a deposed sovereign, claiming to be sovereign de jure, might lawfully 
commission privateers against the subjects and adherents of the sover- 
eign de facto on the throne ; or whether they were to be regarded as 
pirates, inasmuch as they were %M.\mg animo furandi et deprcedendi with- 
out any national character." 

And,, after stating at length the argument on both sides, Mr. 
Phillimore gives as his judgment ; 

_" That, after allowing every deduction in their favor, the reason of the 
thing must be allowed to preponderate greatly towards the opinion of 
Tindal, that these privateersmen wore, bv the Liav of nations, pirates." 
(1 PhiUi. 398-40().) 

But, whatever may be the correct judgment upon this point, 
one thing is certain, that all the character these vessels possess, 
is British ; and that if they are pirates at all, they are British 
PIRATES, roaming the seas, with the implied permission, if not 
actual connivance, of that government ; and that for the depre- 
dations of these vessels, Great Britain is, by the spirit of the 
law, the usage of nations, and, especially, the precedent estab- 
lished in her favor and on her demand in 1794, bound to pay, 
even to the last dollar of loss. 

I have undertaken this hasty investigation, on account of 
the importance which international affairs are assuming in con- 
sequence of the outrages of these lawless rovers, and because 
of the prevalent ignorance — in which I fully shared — as to the 
true character and extent of our right in the premises. Fortu- 
nately, the historical facts which have been cited, are such as 
carry the argument upon their face ; and, for the few conclu- 
sions which it has been necessary to draw, it is not doubted that 
they will be found by those who may give this grave subject 
more deliberate consideration — to be, in all essential character- 
istics, sustained by both the letter and spirit of the law. For the 
purpose of a brief recapitulation, these conclusions may be 
stated as follows : First. The obligation of neutrality which 



o6 ENGLISH NEUTRALITY. 

Great Britain owes this nation is based on international law, 
international comity, gratitude, the spirit of treaties, and, last 
and least, upon that compact with all the world, called the Act 
of 59 Geo. III. Second. That international law is the science 
of the external relations of nations, and thart its sanctions are 
neither derived from nor dependent upon things municipal, but 
bear equally upon democracies, aristocracies, and despotisms. 
Third. For this reason, no government can excuse itself from 
full performance of its international obligations by the sugges- 
tion of any lack of internal authority ; and within the scope of 
this proposition, it m^y be safely asserted that, if that radical 
defect in the internal organization of this republic, which pre- 
vented the President of the United States from exercising con- 
trol over the sheriff of an interior county of New York, was 
not a good excuse in McLeod's case, England will hardly make 
a defect of power in her revenue officers suffice in the matter of 
the Florida; nor a queen's advocate's " malady" in that of the 
Alabama. Fourth. That it was the duty of the British gov- 
orment in both cases, after the application of Mr. Adams, to 
have followed the "Maury" precedent by seizing and holding 
the vessels, and thus preventing mischief, until a full investiga- 
tion could have been had; and having failed in this, it was a 
duty all the more imperative, when the real purpose of these 
vessels was known, to follow the Portuguese-Terceira precedent, 
by sending British cruisers to the ends of the earth, to prevent 
the consummation of the fraud, as well as bring the criminals 
to justice for their offence against the dignity and peace of 
England. Fifth. That the action of the British government, 
certainly, and its motive, apparently, have been grossly in 
breach of its neutral obligations. Sixth. That it is a maxim in 
universal justice, as well as in the common law, that there is no 
wrong without a remedy ; and the remedies for these injuries 
are of two kinds : 1st, by civil, action and criminal prosecution 
against the English owners, their servants, agents, and abettors ; 
and, 2d, by the demand, and receipt from that government, of 
full compensation to private sufferers ; and in default of the lat- 
ter, by reprisals and war. 

And, in justification of such a war, we may appeal to English 
state papers, where the reasons will be found, set out with all 
requisite particularity by England's greatest historian for one 
of her greatest kings. 



.^-J^/^ 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 





012 608 028 1 



>^^-' 
>.^^.-. 






MT 





■ yK "^^^ 






X ./ 


>' 





